Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question which this appeal raises is whether the mortgage debt is binding upon defendants 2, 3 and 4. The actual executant of the said bond was the first defendant, but he purports to have executed it not only on his own behalf but also as the "family manager and guardian of his undivided younger brother", the second defendant, who was then a minor. All the defendants resisted the claim, even the receipt of the consideration having been denied by the first defendant. There was a further allegation that so far as defendants 2 to 4 were concerned the debt was not incurred for a purpose binding upon the joint family. The learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that consideration was paid, with which we unhesitatingly concur. The facts may be shortly stated. A person by name Chockalinga had three daughters by his first wife but no male issue. Thereupon he adopted the first defendant as his son. Subsequently he married a second wife and the second defendant was his son by her. Egappa Chetty the mortgagee is the husband of one of Chocka-lingas daughters by his first wife. The mortgage was granted in December, 1916, and it was assigned to the plai